Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their boy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States and that it doesnt matter.

According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit,  Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office. (1)

A person who is not Constitutionally qualified to be President can run for the office, but may not serve. That was established in the lawsuits surrounding Eldridge Cleaver’s nomination as the Peace and Freedom Party Presidential candidate at the age of 31.

Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their boy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States and that it doesnt matter.

Two things wrong with the bolded text - (1) NO ONE, Dem, 'Pubbie, or Independent Martian peanut farmer has EVER had to defend zero's eligibility in court. In every single challange to his eligibility, the courts have dismissed the plaintiff as having no standing to bring the action to court prior to ever getting to opening arguments or pre-trial motions, therefore, no one has ever had to defend his eligibility in court. (2) Use of the term "boy" in reference to 0bama is a poor choice of words since the morons in the Dem Party will use that terminology as proof that 'Pubbies, conservatives and anyone else who opposes zero being president is only doing so because they are racists. As much as I hate playing the liberals' PC games, in this sense, we should be careful how we refer to the ineligible Kenyan fraud.

According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit,  Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office. (1)

The first part of that statement is true - the Tennesee Democrat Party DOES have the right to nominate anyone they choose. HOWEVER . . . . . . . . . the Constitution (which, in a surprise twist to the Democrats, is NOT a living document!) provides very clear requirements for anyone wishing to be president of the United States and SPECIFICALLY lists the eligibility requirements.

So, the Tennessee Democrat Party as well as the Democrat Party as a hole (typo intentional!) need to attend the Hillsdale College lecture series on the Constitution to learn about or refresh their knowledge of the Constitution. Until something changes (over MY dead body!!), the Cnstitution is STILL the law of the land and it applies equally to us all, REGARDLESS of party affiliation!!

According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit,  Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office. (1)

And here I thought the guy with the hundred pound scrotum had the biggest ball this week.

23
posted on 06/23/2012 11:26:51 AM PDT
by a fool in paradise
(The media ignored the 40th anniversary of Bill Ayers' Pentagon bombing but not Watergate. Ask Why.)

That’s all the Democrats have. They have known from the beginning that he is not elligible to serve according to the Constitution of the United States of America. They did not spend millions in legal defense motions to keep him in office for nothing. He is not elligible or he would have proved it by now. He was, as his grandmother said, born in Kenya and she was there to witness it. Do you not think it stange that you have not seen a birth certificate?

There are also two copies of the Colorado “Official Certification of Nomination” document with Obama and Biden named and signed by Pelosi and the DNC secretary. They are both notarized and dated 8/28/08.

The second one has a stamped mark saying it was received 8/29/08. It also has the phrase “the following candidates are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” REMOVED.

I downloaded copies of these from a news article, but I do not have a way post them.

Republican senate and house critters are not much better for allowing this crap to continue, unchallenged. Too many PUBs had a hand in getting Obama elected or did not do enough to prevent it  and I am not just talking about GW, Cheney and McClown. The latter three could have fully identified Obama and his ineligibility but DID NOTHING.

“Until you can find a court with the GUTS to rule on this case its gonna go no where.”Today was the deadline given by the Florida judge in the case to remove Obama’s name from the Florida General Election Ballot. Is there any news on this case?

[ A person who is not Constitutionally qualified to be President can run for the office, but may not serve. That was established in the lawsuits surrounding Eldridge Cleavers nomination as the Peace and Freedom Party Presidential candidate at the age of 31. ]

This looks like a job for:

JOE BIDEN!!!!

So has Biden actually been president these last 3-1/2 years?

That sounds so nice...

So would Joe have to re-sign all those executive orders? Or has he been signing them all along....

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.